From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NkzK2-0004A2-2m for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:29:34 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7CC01E09C6; Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:28:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-fx0-f222.google.com (mail-fx0-f222.google.com [209.85.220.222]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 433A0E09C6 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:28:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxm22 with SMTP id 22so10382fxm.26 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2010 04:28:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date :user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=9gt7xOd97Ze1gyLCVvoq4gfU9COCuyrwFdq3eQ8xgS8=; b=TCP0o2qFrvJE4CpVxwe5hauTcweAK7Fg8MWVvLfTZKK7420MGztUM5lqJ5cRx7W1q1 2slwj/nIYAbgF23ThNiBAYhsTXVB8pAkIeI9KiHw7QXJkHHnemMrl+dV03wYBP1zuFfZ Wa+PA/dLzA4gG+SYUr3qyfd6jDCHUlZ6TBCZw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; b=DEPzPLUpCIYeO9EHxnADF854vuXFDcrfneSfi9oPeeZJiPVjyYHvokquvsQBOEX0Ay 1fIr2bt8EgVsKzCseIJxz3swEnC+OQ5LF83LnMLnKCCymLbSntwI/xO4SggLN+K5ozMI gncZ82EfPEGH6aTmy1VcrCUmf2Ck5cvUz8bXI= Received: by 10.223.110.29 with SMTP id l29mr373573fap.64.1267187338618; Fri, 26 Feb 2010 04:28:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from energy.localnet (ip-80-226-1-7.vodafone-net.de [80.226.1.7]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 15sm34669fxm.4.2010.02.26.04.28.57 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 26 Feb 2010 04:28:58 -0800 (PST) From: Volker Armin Hemmann To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] What is the proper fstab line for shm memory (tmpfs) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:28:52 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.0 (Linux/2.6.32.8r4; KDE/4.4.0; x86_64; ; ) References: <1267186392.8861.9.camel@rattus> In-Reply-To: <1267186392.8861.9.camel@rattus> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201002261328.52839.volkerarmin@googlemail.com> X-Archives-Salt: 1e95c7dc-5e1b-46f0-93b7-ebc7afcd9b72 X-Archives-Hash: bbffe8cabbaffc63b00b802630c80e42 On Freitag 26 Februar 2010, William Kenworthy wrote: > I have a number of systems with different shm lines in fstab - but which > is correct? - I think they all work, but which is best (and why)? The > main use I am concerned about is a PXE system with root over nfs where I > am putting the portage tmp and some other stuff in tmpfs for speed. > > tmpfs /dev/shm tmpfs defaults 0 0 > shm /dev/shm tmpfs nodev,nosuid,noexec 0 0 > none /dev/shm tmpfs defaults 0 0 > > I suspect the middle line is correct. > > BillK I have shm /dev/shm tmpfs nodev,nosuid,noexec 0 0 for ages in fstab. If it is wrong, I am living a lie for years now.